Dealing with large Dynamic Range of the Negative . . . ??

[cowanw]

Reading your first post it does not seem that you have tried a softer grade than plain white light. I would have thought printing with a grade 1 filter or so would have been a first step.

 

[tedr1]

I also made extensive use of dodging and burning and believe it is a skill every printer needs. At its most simple the shadow of the hand on the paper may be used. In case you haven't a guide many variations are possible: distance between hand and paper varies the size of the shadow; a fist is smaller than spread fingers; spread fingers can be used to produce a graded effect; the hand is never still because that would produce a hard shadow of the hand! the hand is shaken or waved rapidly; the motion may be vertical to vary the size of the shadow; horizontal to cover different parts of the image for different times. The next step is small pieces of opaque card cut to the desired shape and mounted on the end of a wire so that it can be shaken and made to vibrate. For burning cut out apertures in opaque card. There are purpose-made adjustable burning tools called vignetters. And so on. Very simple, very effective, sometimes also very quick. When you have a print you are happy with make a note of the dodging and burning for reprints.

Print development is usually complete, ie, extending the time does not change the density or contrast. This is unlike film development where the process is interrupted before completion to achieve the desired contrast/speed result. Changes to print developer can be useful for variations in image tone with some papers, however I never think of using print development variations for the purpose of density or contrast control, that is the purpose of the contrast filters and exposure duration.

 

[awty]

"that won't help much; and if you squeeze the contrast range into a paper range the print will look flat bu, the image is worth making a contrast mask; that will increase sharpness, control the contrast and make a dynamic print!"

What is this "Contrast Mask" thou speaketh of . . . ??

Im not totally sure, but till some comes and explains it and while I wait for my pinhole camera to make an exposure.
You can make a print cut out for instance the structure or part there of, carefully overlay onto your print to expose the columns in effect precise burn in which will make the columns pop out from the background. Problem with this is its hard not to leave lines. Another method is to make a paper negative, by first making a contrasty print, then overlaying ontop of a piece of photopaper making a contact negative contact print. Then you can use a thick black texter to paint out everything but the columns or what ever. Over lay after an initial expusure of the back ground then take the film negative out and overlay the photo negative and there fore just exposing the parts you want burnt in, can get neater softer edges Its labour intensive and would take a lot of skill, but there are other methods and Im sure someone could explain it better.
Damn the wind is picking up and Im going to get a extra soft negative .......theres no fun in certainty .

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd make an unsharp, contrast mask. That will add significant density to your shadows. If that is to advanced technique, ( actually quite easy), I'd start off with the softest (as in contrast) print possible, then gradually increase the contrast, dodging/burning of necessary.

 

[John Galt]

Thank you everyone for the replies . . I have learned a lot, and I am researching various techniques to make my printing efforts better and better. Being a retired Engineer (it's a curse) I find that I definitely lean towards perfectionism . . .

The two images are the original scan and my final print. AT this point I am pretty happy with it. I used the Beseler 23C II with el nikkor 80mm f5.6 lens, Contrast filter #2 exposed for 22 seconds at f22 on Ilford MG IV glossy. I used two sheets of 5x7 paper to dodge everything on both sides of the center column.

Printed at 8x8. Wish it had a little more "pop" like the scan . .

Constructive Criticism is greatly appreciated . .

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You're well on your way.
Just practice and make notes.
Change only one thing at a time.
Remember to develop "to completion" for good solid blacks.

 

[John Galt]

You're well on your way.
Just practice and make notes.
Change only one thing at a time.
Remember to develop "to completion" for good solid blacks.

Thanks E. von Hoegh. I develop in Dektol 1+2 for 90 seconds . . . is that enough?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Thanks E. von Hoegh. I develop in D-76 for 90 seconds . . . is that enough?

I'd go a bit more, it's pretty hard to overdevelop paper. I think I was using 2 1/2 minutes in D76. As long as you're getting good blacks, plus a bit to allow for the devoloper weakening during a printing session.

 

[John Galt]

E. von Hoegh, I edited my comment above . . actually I use Dektol 1+2 for my prints for 90 seconds.

 

[MattKing]

"Pop" is somewhat over-rated .
As posted, some of the "pop" in the negative scan comes from highlights in the column that lack detail, whereas the print shows that detail. Subjectively, I find the print scan more satisfying.
90 seconds is in the ballpark for RC paper and Dektol 1+2. It would be marginal for FB paper.
It would be worthwhile for you to experiment with longer developing times, but be sure to use the same time for your tests and the associated final prints. You may very well decide to stay at 90 seconds.
And by the way, D-76 isn't used as a print developer by many people.

 

[warden]

Here's a nice write-up that might help you to get started. There are numerous techniques for using split-grade printing and dodging/burning, sometimes the hardest part is figuring out how to approach it. Good Luck!
http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/split-grade-printing-guest-post.html

Thanks a lot. It was about five years ago that I wrote that article and I still enjoy split grade printing. I've adjusted my technique a bit since then but it's still close to the one in the article. For me it's just more fun and flexible.

 

[M Carter]

I'd make an unsharp, contrast mask. That will add significant density to your shadows. If that is to advanced technique, ( actually quite easy), I'd start off with the softest (as in contrast) print possible, then gradually increase the contrast, dodging/burning of necessary.

I'll second this, but also second that it's a fairly advanced technique... it requires a glass carrier (in my mind anyway)... and optimally pin registration, though there are suitable workarounds for unsharp masks that will stay on the neg for the entire exposure. I've never used it with 35mm negs but that seems nightmarish to me.

On the other hand, the power is pretty immense, and with medium or large format, you can dodge/burn the mask, play with development, and even bleach it to control specific areas of the mask, and ortho-litho film is dirt cheap and crazy-easy to work with (process under safe lights). But for many printers this is a "next step up" sort of thing.